Ciftci v London Borough of Haringey

For section 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996, a disappointed expectation about the future may amount to unawareness of a current relevant fact only where, when giving up accommodation, the applicant had an active and informed understanding of specific future prospects founded on genuine investigation rather than aspiration. The asserted fact must also bear on why the applicant became homeless. Employment prospects are therefore relevant only where they are sufficiently linked to future housing.

A housing authority must make reasonable and necessary inquiries, not every inquiry that might be desirable. A review decision is not procedurally unfair merely because it takes account of material provided in response to a minded-to-find letter; the authority need not issue a further such letter before deciding the review.

The appellant surrendered a secure and suitable tenancy in Switzerland and travelled to England with her son. She stayed temporarily with friends of her sister and had a job arranged by her sister, but the job was short-lived and the friends later required her to leave.

Haringey decided on review that she had deliberately given up accommodation which it was reasonable to continue occupying and was intentionally homeless. The reviewing officer found that she had not made sufficient inquiries into either the temporary accommodation or the work, and that she was not unaware of a relevant fact.

His Honour Judge Hellman held that Haringey had been entitled to reach that conclusion. The appeal concerned whether the authority had made adequate inquiries, whether reliance on matters concerning the job was procedurally unfair, and whether the failed employment arrangement could amount to an unknown fact relevant to the appellant's homelessness.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Lewison gave the reasons, with which Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Nugee agreed.

1. Section 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996 can apply where a future expectation proves false, but only if, at the time of the deliberate act, the applicant had an active and informed understanding of specific future prospects. That understanding must rest on genuine investigation rather than mere aspiration. The asserted fact must also be relevant to the cause of homelessness. Employment prospects may satisfy that requirement only where they are sufficiently connected to the applicant's ability to obtain or retain accommodation.

2. There was no material before the reviewing officer to show that the appellant had a plan to use income from the job to secure later accommodation. She had said only that her sister had found her a job and a family with whom she could stay. She did not explain a housing plan, investigate the nature or duration of the accommodation, or investigate the work. Her loss of the job was not the reason the temporary hosts required her to leave. The officer was entitled to find that she was aware of all relevant facts and that surrendering the Swiss tenancy caused her homelessness.

3. The duty under section 184(1) is to make necessary and reasonable inquiries. Applying the public-law approach in R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673, a court intervenes only where no reasonable authority could regard the information obtained as sufficient. The authority had made repeated inquiries, invited representations twice, issued a minded-to-find letter and sent a focused questionnaire. It was entitled to regard its inquiries as sufficient, particularly as the appellant had not raised the alleged employment-to-housing link.

4. It was not procedurally unfair to rely on the appellant's answer to the questionnaire concerning the job. The review procedure did not require a further minded-to-find letter after every representation received in response to the existing letter.

The reviewing officer was therefore entitled to decide that the appellant was intentionally homeless.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appellant's second appeal and upheld the lawfulness of Haringey's review decision: [2021] EWCA Civ 1772.
• County Court at Central London — His Honour Judge Hellman held that Haringey had been entitled to conclude that the appellant was intentionally homeless.